Derail from PD: rehash on 911 conspiracy.

[empty]

To be fair this is a lot more tame than most "conspiracy theories".

While I agree this is far from the controlled demolition, thermite bullshit, etc. put out by conspiricists,

the only bullshit is the official story (and the disinfo conspiracies like directed energy weapons, holographic airplanes, and nuclear explosives)

it is well known there are patented thermate cutting charges, and documented nanothermite, created only a few years prior to 9/11 in u.s military labs
the great thermate debate
Cutter Charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center
South Tower Smoking Guns
South Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)
South Tower: Exploding Projectile

there is irrefutable evidence for too high temperatures and molten metal, even discovered and documented by nist themselves, and other physical reasons discrediting natural collapse
9/11: Best Physical Evidence for Explosives
David Chandler 9/11 Interview in Eugene OR
9/11: Hard Evidence
AE911Truth Experts Speak Out
Richard Gage: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
World Trade Center Building 7’s Controlled Demolition: New Evidence from Witness Testimonies and Architectural Drawings
Why Are NIST’s 9/11 WTC Reports False and Unscientific?
Evidence Overview

as well as the laws ov physics which eliminate the possibility ov a natural collapse
physicsandreason
Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
What a Gravity-Driven Demolition Looks Like
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II)
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

and myriad other evidence confirming an inside job
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
Another Nineteen - Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects
Episode 014 – Al Qaeda Doesn’t Exist
When Osama Bin Ladin Was 'Tim Osman'
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory
911 and the cover up by Ryan Dawson
9/11 In Plane Site - Directors Cut
ZERO An Investigation Into 9/11
Who killed John O'Neil?
Sub-Forums : The U.S. Government Conspiracy of 9/11
9/11 - Missing Links
9/11 in the Academic Community - Academia's Treatment of Critical Perspectives on 9/11
Top NSA Whistleblower: We Need a New 9/11 Investigation Into the Destruction of the World Trade Center

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I agree this is far from the controlled demolition, thermite bullshit, etc. put out by conspiricists,

the only bullshit is the official story (and the disinfo conspiracies like directed energy weapons, holographic airplanes, and nuclear explosives)

:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014

Most all this is you-tube videos, I'm not going to bother.

 

[ZiprHead]

While I agree this is far from the controlled demolition, thermite bullshit, etc. put out by conspiricists,

the only bullshit is the official story (and the disinfo conspiracies like directed energy weapons, holographic airplanes, and nuclear explosives)

The crazy, conspiracy forum is that-away ----->

 

[empty]

the only bullshit is the official story (and the disinfo conspiracies like directed energy weapons, holographic airplanes, and nuclear explosives)

:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014

Most all this is you-tube videos, I'm not going to bother.

merely an ad hominem, like on the previous board
and observation is the root ov science
all you have is a cop out not to engage with any ov the material presented

 

[empty]

the only bullshit is the official story (and the disinfo conspiracies like directed energy weapons, holographic airplanes, and nuclear explosives)

The crazy, conspiracy forum is that-away ----->

so you have nothing ov value to add. ov course you dont, the proof is irrefutable

 

[bilby]

The crazy, conspiracy forum is that-away ----->

so you have nothing ov value to add. ov course you dont, the proof is irrefutable

Irrefutable proof is the hallmark of irrational faith.

Science doesn't do proof; and in order to be doing science, a hypothesis must be accompanied by a statement in the spirt of "...of course, if we found X, that would refute this".

You are entitled to your crazy assed and irrational beliefs; but you are not entitled to any respect for them.

Nobody is interested in engaging in a debate that was resolved long ago, except to poke fun at your silliness. It us much the same as debating creationists or flat-earthers.

If we are to accept 'evidence' of this appalling standard, then we can prove literally anything. And if anything goes, we know nothing at all.

 

[empty]

so you have nothing ov value to add. ov course you dont, the proof is irrefutable

Irrefutable proof is the hallmark of irrational faith.

Science doesn't do proof; and in order to be doing science, a hypothesis must be accompanied by a statement in the spirt of "...of course, if we found X, that would refute this".

You are entitled to your crazy assed and irrational beliefs; but you are not entitled to any respect for them.

Nobody is interested in engaging in a debate that was resolved long ago, except to poke fun at your silliness. It us much the same as debating creationists or flat-earthers.

If we are to accept 'evidence' of this appalling standard, then we can prove literally anything. And if anything goes, we know nothing at all.

by your own admission, debate occurs "if we found x," which we have
science has laws, and these laws, among other evidence, state the official story cannot be true, 'unless you find x', but the equation has already been balanced, therefore you cant
if you want to avoid debate based on semantics, the problem is not mine

 

[Harry Bosch]

The crazy, conspiracy forum is that-away ----->

so you have nothing ov value to add. ov course you dont, the proof is irrefutable

Buddy: you need to change your tin hat.

 

[empty]

so you have nothing ov value to add. ov course you dont, the proof is irrefutable

Buddy: you need to change your tin hat.

more ad hominems from the 'free thought and rational debate board'
buddy, you need to learn logic and argumentation

 

[Harry Bosch]

Buddy: you need to change your tin hat.

more ad hominems from the 'free thought and rational debate board'
buddy, you need to learn logic and argumentation

The burden of proof is on you to prove a conspiracy theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[empty]

more ad hominems from the 'free thought and rational debate board'
buddy, you need to learn logic and argumentation

The burden of proof is on you to prove a conspiracy theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

its not an extraordinary claim, as false flag conspiracies are not irregular, and i already have proven my claim
really, as you have shown in other threads, youre out ov your league here

 

[Mumbles]

*blinks*

Boy, you really went there. Been a while since I entered *this* discussion.

Yeah...that's not how things work. Sorry, the 9/11 attacks were too over the top, and we already knew Al Qaida was launching attacks against us. Hell, WE know that GWB and Cheney needed time to come up with a response.

The classified report may be "stunning", but I heavily doubt that is says what you think.

 

[Underseer]

The burden of proof is on you to prove a conspiracy theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

its not an extraordinary claim, as false flag conspiracies are not irregular, and i already have proven my claim
really, as you have shown in other threads, youre out ov your league here

Acts of deception by governments are common, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the moon landings were faked.

 

[ZiprHead]

Empty

May I ask you to address your conspiracy theories over to the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. They have a sub-forum devoted strictly to 9/11 conspiracy debunking. Probably the best 9/11 website theory on the web. I suspect all your theories have thoroughly been debunked there already. I suggest you check it out. Here is a link.: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

 

[Loren Pechtel]

:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014

Most all this is you-tube videos, I'm not going to bother.

merely an ad hominem, like on the previous board
and observation is the root ov science
all you have is a cop out not to engage with any ov the material presented

Does it occur to you that such things have been debated on here over and over? You haven't been around long enough for most of the debates.

You-tube videos take far longer to get the pertinent information out of than text. There's no actual video evidence, the use of video just takes up time and encourages deception rather than sticking to the facts.

 

[empty]

*blinks*

Boy, you really went there. Been a while since I entered *this* discussion.

Yeah...that's not how things work. Sorry, the 9/11 attacks were too over the top, and we already knew Al Qaida was launching attacks against us. Hell, WE know that GWB and Cheney needed time to come up with a response.

The classified report may be "stunning", but I heavily doubt that is says what you think.

i never said the classified 28 pages contains this information. it doesnt, because the commission left out any data related, and furthermore, any information the commission had disagreements on was left out

 

[empty]

its not an extraordinary claim, as false flag conspiracies are not irregular, and i already have proven my claim
really, as you have shown in other threads, youre out ov your league here

Acts of deception by governments are common, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the moon landings were faked.

glad to see there is some amount ov honesty here, despite another ad hominem, but for the record i believe man went to the moon

 

[empty]

Empty

May I ask you to address your conspiracy theories over to the James Randi Educational Foundation forum. They have a sub-forum devoted strictly to 9/11 conspiracy debunking. Probably the best 9/11 website theory on the web. I suspect all your theories have thoroughly been debunked there already. I suggest you check it out. Here is a link.: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

you suspect wrong; they have more trouble addressing the issues than proponents ov the official story here have. their most prominent poster and foundation is chris mohr, someone who has no background in physics nor any other field related to discussion on the events ov 9/11, and who has been refuted multiple times, such as here, quoting, "im an independent 9/11 researcher with ties to ae911truth, but i was not a party to the debate, and im not speaking here for ae911truth, im responding directly to mr mohr because he dragged my name into the conversation. i would never consent to a scientific debate with chris more any more than i would try to debate physics with sarah palin." besides, it would do no good for this community, but if you think they have the answers, then i invite you to use their resources to debate me here

 

[empty]

merely an ad hominem, like on the previous board
and observation is the root ov science
all you have is a cop out not to engage with any ov the material presented

Does it occur to you that such things have been debated on here over and over? You haven't been around long enough for most of the debates.

You-tube videos take far longer to get the pertinent information out of than text. There's no actual video evidence, the use of video just takes up time and encourages deception rather than sticking to the facts.

as one ov your peers has already stated, "...of course, if we found X, that would refute this", which has happened since, or the previous debaters did not have such information, or were disinfo agents themselves
all you have is cop outs, loren. there is video evidence, visual or literary, and many ov the videos i posted are no longer than a few minutes, and that doesnt even address the articles you wont read. but i am familiar with them and can provide any time info needed (despite that you wouldnt address my comments on the last board even when i did so)

 

[ZiprHead]

you suspect wrong; they have more trouble addressing the issues than proponents ov the official story here have. their most prominent poster and foundation is chris mohr, someone who has no background in physics nor any other field related to discussion on the events ov 9/11, and who has been refuted multiple times, such as here, quoting, "im an independent 9/11 researcher with ties to ae911truth, but i was not a party to the debate, and im not speaking here for ae911truth, im responding directly to mr mohr because he dragged my name into the conversation. i would never consent to a scientific debate with chris more any more than i would try to debate physics with sarah palin." besides, it would do no good for this community, but if you think they have the answers, then i invite you to use their resources to debate me here

By that same standard you are not qualified to talk or debate these issues too.